Arizona voters passed a referendum requiring individuals to (1) show evidence of citizenship when they register to vote, and (2) produce voter identification at the polls. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the first part of the referendum was pre-empted by Federal law.
Horne requested an “en banc rehearing” of the matter, in which an 11 judge panel reconsiders the ruling issued by a e-judge panel. Horne personally argued the case to the 11 judge panel. The Court ruled that requiring voter I.D. on Election Day is permissible, but that Arizona could not ask people for evidence of citizenship when they register to vote. Rather, the Court ruled that Arizona would have to trust the signature on the form where people declare that they are citizens.
Horne added: “Arizona has a right to ask people for evidence that they are citizens when they register to vote. If someone is willing to vote illegally, he or she is willing to sign a false statement regarding citizenship. This “honor system” is not sufficient to guard the integrity of the election system. The trial record in this case shows substantial evidence of voter fraud, especially by organizations like ACORN. If citizens feel their votes are being diluted by illegal voters, they’re less likely to vote, and this results in less voter participation, rather than more. This is another case where the Federal Government has unjustly interfered with the rights of the states. In fact the Obama administration argued against us at the Ninth Circuit. Not only will they not enforce the border, but they want illegals to vote. Since I argued the case to the Ninth Circuit, I am ready at any time to argue it personally at the Supreme Court.”